easier to me now in
comparison to what I saw the last time. Either way, I'm a proud high number
CCIE.
Frank Garcia, CCIE #11013
Unemployed, looking for work as a Real Estate Agent
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=71507t=70151
Dear All, I am in the process of selecting a PIX model and would like to
know how many TCP sessions on average, and on peak that the router
receive ? Can this be accomplished using NetFlow ? If not, what other
options are available. Best Regards,Yasser
clearly decrease the number of CCIEs, which can
be viewed as a good or bad thing. Cisco does want more CCIEs to some
degree, yet it can hurt them if there is no longer a true upper
echelon of certification anymore.
Ironically if they make a new tree, such as the REAL CCIE, it only
turns
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
MADMAN
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 11:59 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
n The same was true of my 2-day
test, again, I had done everything on both days by mid
if they
want to value there flagship cert. Everyone would agree w/me that the value
of the cert has a lot more value than the value put in to obtained the cert.
- Original Message -
From: Carroll Kong
To:
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 4:17 PM
Subject: Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Hmmm that might
Were the two T1's terminating at two differant ISP's? If so BGP
would be appropriate. If you have 2 T1's terminating at a single
ISP in
the same POP then no.
What would you do if they had been terminating at a single ISP in the
same POP? Or did you mean same router?
Most likely
Duy Nguyen wrote:
If it comes down to money. Why not increase the rate? I've
remember when
the price for exam was only a G. When they decided to raise
the price,
peeps start to mumbleed and grumbleed how the test was getting
so expensive,
but that didn't stop peeps from taking the
Thanks, I appreciate your comments.
Zsombor
At 01:36 PM 6/23/2003 -0500, MADMAN wrote:
Were the two T1's terminating at two differant ISP's? If so BGP
would be appropriate. If you have 2 T1's terminating at a single ISP in
the same POP then no.
What would you do if they had been
Duy Nguyen wrote:
Would it be a good idea to make the CCIE Lab adaptive? 1st,
everyone will
try a screener test of overall technologies. Once you have
finished, they
will give you a lab book that they believe are more challenging
to you. How
many lab books do they have, maybe a
Hmmm that might work. However, while you say someone good with
concepts will do well, that is what I always thought earlier, until a
good amount of members on this list and in the real world insisted
that good knowledge of theory won't get you anywhere on the CCIE
exam, only hardened
I was multi-homed. Sprint and Qwest.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Howard C. Berkowitz
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 4:41 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: When to run BGP (was RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
At 4:24 PM + 6/20/03, Mark E
you, the clock aready started. You just wasted 2 minutes staring at me.
- Original Message -
From: n rf
To:
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 10:09 PM
Subject: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Carroll Kong wrote:
be more prone to some form of bootcamp brain dumpage
a lot of the lower number
CCIE. Just that a VERY large percentage of them have taken up more
managerial jobs, and have not kept up at all with the latest
technologies. Their learning / thought processes seem so slow it is
so hard for them to adopt new things since they are used to
managerial
Yes the two T-1's were from Sprint and Qwest.
-Original Message-
From: MADMAN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 12:37 PM
To: Mark E. Hayes
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Mark E. Hayes wrote:
NOT being a wise-a$$ here... When
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 12:37 PM
To: Mark E. Hayes
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Mark E. Hayes wrote:
NOT being a wise-a$$ here... When is it appropriate to run BGP? I set
it
up at the last job I had because I felt
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
MADMAN
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 11:59 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
n The same was true of my 2-day
test, again, I had done everything on both days by mid-afternoon and I
just
sat around
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
n The same was true of my 2-day
test, again, I had done everything on both days by mid-afternoon and I
just
sat around with nothing to do but check my work over and over again.
Hmm, when I took the lab you were done configuring
At 4:24 PM + 6/20/03, Mark E. Hayes wrote:
NOT being a wise-a$$ here... When is it appropriate to run BGP? I set it
up at the last job I had because I felt it was the best way to get
redundancy for web services. I had two T-1's, ASN, and had to guarantee
100% uptime for one of our clients.
MADMAN wrote:
n The same was true of my 2-day
test, again, I had done everything on both days by
mid-afternoon and I just
sat around with nothing to do but check my work over and over
again.
Hmm, when I took the lab you were done configuring at noon
on the
second day at which
Carroll Kong wrote:
be more prone to some form of bootcamp brain dumpage. But
this
is
not really conclusive. It might just be that, the CCIE is
becoming
more popular and people have recently tapped into this
market. The
drop in Cisco gear pricing on the used market
was advocating criminals, or are higher number
CCIEs are? not sure) then, you mentioned that knowing English is necessary
or prudent for finding a job in US. Well (though I know English reasonably
well, but) I will like to ask you one thing, do one has IT jobs in US only?,
I am located in India, so does
nrf said:
Let's face it - no company is ever going to hire Charles Manson.
Didn't Routergod.com ;-)
n rf wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vikram JeetSingh wrote:
Hi All,
I was stopping myself for writing on this thread for quite some
time. Quite
a number of people
for the
same, did I mentioned that I was advocating criminals, or are
higher number
CCIEs are? not sure) then, you mentioned that knowing English
is necessary
or prudent for finding a job in US. Well (though I know English
reasonably
well, but) I will like to ask you one thing, do one has IT jobs
is only one
cut (albeit a substantial one). Like I said, the proliferation of bootcamps
and dedicated practice labs, and all these other things all take their toll.
One thing is true though. By law of numbers, even if the
percentage
rate of failure IS the same, since the NET number of CCIES
Hi All,
I was stopping myself for writing on this thread for quite some time. Quite
a number of people have reverted back on this, but this one, (from Peter) is
just kind of PERFECT. Priscilla also wrote on one of other threads, that for
having a worthwhile career you just don't need good
Vikram JeetSingh wrote:
Hi All,
I was stopping myself for writing on this thread for quite some
time. Quite
a number of people have reverted back on this, but this one,
(from Peter) is
just kind of PERFECT. Priscilla also wrote on one of other
threads, that for
having a worthwhile
be easier for some.
One thing is true though. By law of numbers, even if the percentage
rate of failure IS the same, since the NET number of CCIES passing is
higher, by supply and demand the value of the CCIE is dropping.
(someone else mentioned this as well).
If the percentage of failure is even
much as I hate to help keep this particular thread alive --- below
n rf wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Craig Columbus wrote:
passing from October 2002 to present. The most recent number
I've seen is
11757. Which, averages about 170 people per month.
Extrapolating
Look, guys, the bottom line is this. The fact is, it is more desirable to
have a lower-number ccie than it is to have a higher-number. I believe that
this is so because the test was more rigorous in the past than it is today,
but even if you don't believe this to be the case, you have
a number of criteria. Perhaps
one such
criterion is popularity among router dudes, most elegant
telnet typist, and
IOS orator.
[JN] all in (stale) humor--:)
The idea is that relative-scoring, which is a tactic used by every single
reputable college (not counting community colleges and other
. Why? What's the point?
You can whine all you want and they're still going to have hiring power.
It's far more efficient to simply accept that HR has hiring power and learn
to follow their rules.
I don't mean to get into the battle of which CCIE number is better than
which as I don't really have
what screen you do, you run
the risk of throwing what may turn out to be your best candidate.
And that's really the bottom line. While we would all obviously prefer not
to be treated like some number, the fact is, no company is really prepared
to properly investigate every single candidate thorougly
Craig Columbus wrote:
passing from October 2002 to present. The most recent number
I've seen is
11757. Which, averages about 170 people per month.
Extrapolating to
October, the number of people passing from Oct 2002 to Oct 2003
should turn
out to be around 2044. My conclusion
Folks,
The CCIE certification has really depreciated in value. There was a time
when I proudly used to adorn my designation with my CCIE number. Not any
more. Its value to impress is diminishing every day. Anyways, that was
expected.
Aziz
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED
of my own posts? When have I said in this
particular thread that all certifications were worthless?
In fact, you could easily say quite the opposite - I have said several times
that certain certifications, namely low-number CCIE's, are in fact quite
valuable. So how does that jive with your
Message-
From: n rf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 11 June 2003 15:28
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: number of CCIE??? [7:70328]
Jack Nalbandian wrote:
Boy, for a guy who says that he wants to close the thread, you really have a
lot to say.
1. Attacking his motives
STOP IT! Both of you! :-)
Shawn K.
P.S. This thread has been highly entertaining!
-Original Message-
From: n rf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:28 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: number of CCIE??? [7:70328]
Jack Nalbandian wrote:
Boy
This has been an entertaining thread, but the way I see it is this. Maybe
the high/low CCIE would work with the headhunters and that is a different
story, but we have interviewed/employed a number of IT guys over the past
couple of months, CCIE's included and to be honest I do not look to the CCIE
Steve Wilson wrote:
Thank you gents,
I have come to the conclusion that Jack and NRF is one and the
same person.
Anyone who has seen, or read, Fight Club will recognise the
symptoms. Any
minute now NRF will shoot himself through the mouth and end it
all.
I think I really am going to go
Mark E. Hayes wrote:
hehehe!!! Well done. I enjoyed that retort. I have to admit
that I did
not know there were lab bootcamps. All of the bootcamps I have
seen are
for the written test. How much does a CCIE lab bootcamp run? I
earned my
MCSE and CCNA fair and square, even though, I did
-Original Message-
From: Robertson, Douglas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 1:58 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: number of CCIE??? [7:70328]
This has been an entertaining thread, but the way I see it is this.
Maybe
the high/low CCIE would work
Jack Nalbandian wrote:
[NRF] In this thread, I have attacked what has happened to the
CCIE lately.
Not
the CCIE in general, just what has happened to it lately. This
is a
[JN] Your overall approach has a pattern to it, and your
response ironically
reenforces the notion. The number
At 4:41 PM + 6/11/03, Kaminski, Shawn G wrote:
STOP IT! Both of you! :-)
Shawn K.
P.S. This thread has been highly entertaining!
What is the velocity of the sparrow, measured in CCIE units?
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70544t=70328
LOL! OK. I will only accuse you of blatant bias, if that feels better.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of n
rf
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:50 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: number of CCIE??? [7:70328]
Steve Wilson
# 652-STAR, a position in cert
society achieved by fulfilling a number of criteria. Perhaps one such
criterion is popularity among router dudes, most elegant telnet typist, and
IOS orator.
[JN] all in (stale) humor--:)
[NRF] And then you talk about what people do when they're in college
Of
Howard C. Berkowitz
Sent: 11 June 2003 23:09
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: number of CCIE??? [7:70328]
At 4:41 PM + 6/11/03, Kaminski, Shawn G wrote:
STOP IT! Both of you! :-)
Shawn K.
P.S. This thread has been highly entertaining!
What is the velocity of the sparrow
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Mark E. Hayes wrote:
hehehe!!! Well done. I enjoyed that retort. I have to admit
that I did
not know there were lab bootcamps. All of the bootcamps I have
seen are
for the written test. How much does a CCIE lab bootcamp run? I
earned
: RE: RE: RE: number of CCIE??? [7:70328]
I've been trying to hold my tongue on this one since this firestorm
comes
up at least once a quarterBUT:
NRF is correct. Attacking him and his motives fails to address the
issue
at hand. Rightly, or wrongly, there is a slight devaluation
Mark E. Hayes wrote:
I don't know why I am doing this but I am... As far as trading
in
numbers goes-
It doesn't make a difference to me if I am #1100 or #11000. I
am only a
CCNA now and
working on my NP. I feel the reason for the headhunters and HR
types to
value a lower number
. The new topic of number of CCIEs appears to me to be a part of a series
of attempts to degrade the idea of vendor certification as a whole. That is
his pattern as far as I have observed. I would appreciate genuine concern
and balanced commentary on the matter, but mythology is all I read from his
[NRF] In this thread, I have attacked what has happened to the CCIE lately.
Not
the CCIE in general, just what has happened to it lately. This is a
[JN] Your overall approach has a pattern to it, and your response ironically
reenforces the notion. The number of CCIE thread merely complements
:19 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Here's a question for those recruiters, headhunters and HR People- Out of
CCIE 1025-, how many of them do you think are still actively with the
program, still working in the industry, still are at the top of their game
(i.e
-node companies merging. But I must
insert my own pessimism that I seriously doubt this is the
case. This could be for any number of reasons, but I'm sure
the number one reason is that it was too time-consuming and
expensive to maintain such prestige. Not to mention, they
probably got laid off
straight-up, without any explanation, but I felt (and
obviously with a lot
of justification) that I needed to do a lot of explaining.
Just ask
yourself the question - if you had a high-number, would you
want to trade
it
for a lower number? You know in your heart what you want,
even
says jump, they ask how high and
how many times?
Enough said...
- Original Message -
From: The Road Goes Ever On
To:
Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
some comments are meant in good fun, others are of more
serious
legitimate concern by citing facts has its value,
but I see that
you are indeed peddling myths, but, so far (forgive me for
generalizing
due to limited exposure to your thoughts) you have been very
one-sided ad
biased in your concerns. The CCIE number thread is based
on some
objective
-
From: n rf
To:
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 11:03 AM
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: number of CCIE??? [7:70328]
Jack Nalbandian wrote:
My friend NRF (what is your name anyhow?),
Others have expressed concern, true, and most of them are
legitimate. You
mentioned that the MCSE was thought
subjective topics as you see fit.
for what its worth, in my opinion, nrf has well earned the right to debate
whatever he wants on this list.
pete
thanks.
- Original Message -
From: n rf
Date: Sunday, June 8, 2003 4:14 pm
Subject: Re: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
garrett allen wrote
with intra-area routes only. The total computation then
grows linearily with the number of inter-area and external routes
that the area must consider.
Even more basic is how often this computation has to be repeated,
which comes back to the question of route stability. The Dijkstra
algorithm
Agreed on all points.
Out of curiosity, did anyone ever admit to wanting to trade a higher number
ie with a lower number? I don't think I ever saw anyone come right out and
say yes or no.
I'm pretty much in lurk mode on this list, and so my opinions and such can
be taken for what
This is interesting as I just read last night in Halabi that using Route
Reflectors and Confederations to get around the fully meshed iBGP rule is
only suggested when there are more than 100 iBGP peers!!! I was blown away
by that...
Mike W.
Message Posted at:
, as there have been requests for
this to stop.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of n
rf
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 2:03 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: number of CCIE??? [7:70328]
Jack Nalbandian wrote:
My friend NRF (what
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 6/9/03
11:53:24 AM
Agreed on all points.
Out of curiosity, did anyone ever admit to wanting to trade a higher
number
ie with a lower number? I don't think I ever saw anyone come right out and
say yes or no.
I'm pretty much in lurk mode on this list, and so my opinions
thought question - being perfectly honest, would
you want to trade your number for a lower one or not? The prosecution
rests.
Call me a pollyanna if you will, but I consider such a thing as a kind of
misrepresentation, and as such, I would not choose to be a party to it.
Which is easy enough for me
tested?
Again, I have the simple thought question - being perfectly honest,
would
you want to trade your number for a lower one or not? The prosecution
rests.
Call me a pollyanna if you will, but I consider such a thing as a kind of
misrepresentation, and as such, I would not choose
by:Subject: Re: RE: number
of CCIE [7:70151]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
m
the certification.
3) One of the barriers for entry (CCIE test requirements) has recently
been lowered. Namely, the move from a two day test to a one day
test. Since twice the number of people can now take the exam as could
previously take the exam in a given time period, the number of those
I don't know why I am doing this but I am... As far as trading in
numbers goes-
It doesn't make a difference to me if I am #1100 or #11000. I am only a
CCNA now and
working on my NP. I feel the reason for the headhunters and HR types to
value a lower number
is due to pure ignorance. Most of them
Ok, just so you'll(NRF) be happy.
I, for one, would NOT want to trade my Higher Number CCIE designation
for a lower number designation. Call me stupid, ignorant, clueless,
whatever... but I simply do not see the value in having a lower
number. To me, they are all the same- every last number
John,
Perhaps your bias is based on the intrinsic value of longevity, of
experience, associated with the lower number. You tell me.
Another poster, Craig Columbus [EMAIL PROTECTED],
pointed out market forces, to which I find no objection, however speculative
it is. There is the trend
Holy cow!!! I go away for a few days and find this thread!!! I would
assume if you have a lower CCIE number you have more experience. As time
goes the CCIE will get easier just as the technology in some areas is more
homogonized. That is, years ago the CCIE lab exam may have tested token
Jack Nalbandian wrote:
John,
Perhaps your bias is based on the intrinsic value of longevity,
of
experience, associated with the lower number. You tell me.
Another poster, Craig Columbus
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
pointed out market forces, to which I find no objection,
however speculative
period? with what
technologies being
tested?
Again, I have the simple thought question - being perfectly
honest,
would
you want to trade your number for a lower one or not? The
prosecution
rests.
Call me a pollyanna if you will, but I consider such a thing
as a kind
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of n
rf
Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 9:10 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
garrett allen wrote:
you make an a priori argument that lower is better. is a lower
number
cpa better than a higher numbered one?
You
, June 07, 2003 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
some comments are meant in good fun, others are of more serious source.
pray
do not take offense, as none is intended.
n rf wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sigh. I knew this was going to happen.
so why'd you bring it up
in myths. But again, I am not making
things up. The fact is, some people (not all, but some) who are in charge
of hiring really are starting to prefer the lower-number CCIE's.Go to
the jobs forum or to acc or any of a number of other places.
And once again, I must ask you to ask yourself
want to know is the relationship between the number of routes
and the memory consumption. I can evaluate know this by looking
how many routes are in may routing table and the memory used,
but I would appreciate any experience from you.
Thanks group!
Message Posted at:
http
garrett allen wrote:
yawn.
Bored?
I don't want to be overly confrontational, but if you really thought this
thread was so boring that you're yawning, then why did you bother to make a
rebuttal to me in the first place? The fact that you did obviously means
that you don't think it's THAT
:14 pm
Subject: Re: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
garrett allen wrote:
yawn.
Bored?
I don't want to be overly confrontational, but if you really
thought this
thread was so boring that you're yawning, then why did you bother
to make a
rebuttal to me in the first place? The fact
garrett allen wrote:
the intent of this list is to discuss preparation cisco exams,
not
opportunities in the various job markets. if your comments
don't
relate to the study blueprint in some meaninful way, please
keep them
to yourself.
First of all, keep in mind that I didn't start this
new router? Do you know a simle rule? What
I want to know is the relationship between the number of routes
and the memory consumption. I can evaluate know this by looking
how many routes are in may routing table and the memory used,
but I would appreciate any experience from you.
Thanks
has its value, but I see that
you are indeed peddling myths, but, so far (forgive me for generalizing
due to limited exposure to your thoughts) you have been very one-sided ad
biased in your concerns. The CCIE number thread is based on some
objective opinion of ONE person, you. You have also
to know is the relationship
between the number of routes and the memory consumption. I can evaluate know
this by looking how many routes are in may routing table and the memory
used, but I would appreciate any experience from you.
Thanks group!
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form
sounds like the perfect topic for a PhD research project. Assuming, of
course, that number of routes is the only variable which effects sizing of
memory
Curious wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello again friends, I want to thank Mr Jvd for his help, and I would like
to post again my
valuable over time. I know this
is going to
greatly annoy some people when I say this, but the truth is,
the average
quality of the later (read: high-number) CCIE's is probably
lower than the
average quality of the higher (read: lower-number) CCIE's.
I respectfully disagree. True
garrett allen wrote:
you make an a priori argument that lower is better. is a lower
number
cpa better than a higher numbered one?
You got me wrong. I didn't say that lower is better at all times. Read my
entire post again.
I said that more rigorous equates to prestige. This is why I
Man,
I never see a job post specify that certain CCIE number is prefer.
Why did you even bother to ask this question in the beginning, if you think
the value of CCIE title has drop.
I think is fair to say, after you finished it than you will know what it
take.
Please take the CCIE lab exam
Fernando Saldana del C wrote:
Dear n fr,
Which CCIE number are you ?
What does it matter what my CCIE number is? How does that affect the
validity of my statements? Either what Im saying is either true or it
isnt, who I am has nothing to do with anything. Why cant people debate
just
needed to do a lot of explaining. Just ask
yourself the question - if you had a high-number, would you want to trade it
for a lower number? You know in your heart what you want, even if you don't
want to admit it on this board. Answer the question and be perfectly honest
with yourself.
Somebody
I commend people to remember the tale of the Emperor's New Clothes here.
It utterly confounds me that people are focusing on the CCIE number
as the discriminator for a hiring decision, lower being better.
Lower means that one obtained the certification earlier. Presumably,
since the number
At 3:48 PM + 6/7/03, The Road Goes Ever On wrote:
sounds like the perfect topic for a PhD research project. Assuming, of
course, that number of routes is the only variable which effects sizing of
memory
Curious wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello again friends, I want to thank
, June 07, 2003 11:36 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
I commend people to remember the tale of the Emperor's New Clothes here.
It utterly confounds me that people are focusing on the CCIE number
as the discriminator for a hiring decision, lower being better.
Lower
own pessimism that I seriously
doubt this is the case. This could be for any number of reasons, but I'm
sure the number one reason is that it was too time-consuming and expensive
to maintain such prestige. Not to mention, they probably got laid off for
one reason or another in the past 3-5 years
a high-number, would you want to trade
it
for a lower number? You know in your heart what you want, even if you
don't
want to admit it on this board. Answer the question and be perfectly
honest
with yourself.
most of us on this list would take any number we could get! ;-
Somebody asked whether
Man,
I never see a job post specify that certain CCIE number is prefer.
I have, many times. For example, just check out the archives at
groupstudy.jobs.
Why did you even bother to ask this question in the beginning, if you think
the value of CCIE title has drop.
Huh? I didn't ask
Dude, with all due respect, are you a recruiter for some college somwhere?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of n
rf
Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 9:06 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Sigh. I knew this was going
Man,
I never see a job post specify that certain CCIE number is prefer.
I have, many times. For example, just check out the archives at
groupstudy.jobs.
Why did you even bother to ask this question in the beginning, if you
think
the value of CCIE title has drop.
Huh? I didn't
yawn.
- Original Message -
From: n rf
Date: Saturday, June 7, 2003 12:09 pm
Subject: Re: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
garrett allen wrote:
you make an a priori argument that lower is better. is a lower
number
cpa better than a higher numbered one?
You got me wrong. I
Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
I commend people to remember the tale of the Emperor's New
Clothes here.
It utterly confounds me that people are focusing on the CCIE
number
as the discriminator for a hiring decision, lower being
better.
I'm just telling you what I've seen. I think anybody
Perfect!
- Original Message -
From: philip
To:
Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Man,
I never see a job post specify that certain CCIE number is prefer.
Why did you even bother to ask this question in the beginning, if you
think
1 - 100 of 481 matches
Mail list logo
